Update and Question re: supervised visitation

[Proserpina]

OP -

You have an attorney, and you know that Dad has been on this site before.

If he's as controlling as you say he is, there's a good-to-better chance he's still perusing from time to time, just to see what you're up to even if he's not logging in.

I know if it were me...if I had an attorney and I knew my allegedly psycho (well..unstable at best) ex might be perusing, I wouldn't want to give my ex ANYTHING of a heads-up if what I was saying was the truth.

 

[peppier]

Okay

It was his choice. I told him I was taking him to the MD, told him what they said, and he said "Then just keep him home with you." So - he stayed with me - per Dad's request.

Well, it is your right to believe there is more to it than you are hearing, but the b@tch of it for me is that there IS NO MORE to it than anyone is hearing. It's just a fact - it doesn't make sense, it isn't "normal" but it is the hell that is currently my life. Dad has no answers, I wasn't there, I have what the MD's say, what the social worker says, and the pictures of my sons burned bottom. So, since that is all there is to it, I would love to hear one person give me an answer as to what THEY would do in my shoes...

I believe you, all the way but could there be a slight possibility is that it might have been a reaction to antibiotics?

I just ask because the child of a friend of mine almost died from such a reaction and it was like he was burned over most of his body. If this could be a possibility it would be a good thing to check it out because if he had the same antibiotic again it could kill him.

 

[stealth2]

I find it AMAZING that so many people will criticize and say I am such an evil b*tch who must be getting "euphoria" (how dare the one who said that) out of this, and yet not one of THEM can manage to post something they would be doing DIFFERENTLY given what I am faced with. So, it doesn't make "sense" and therefor must be my fault, or I am leaving something out, and THAT is my fault. Any way you slice it...I would love one of the people who finds my actions (and I don't even know which actions they are ) so deplorable to step up and say what THEY would do different in my shoes. Because there is NO MORE TO IT than has been posted. Plain and simple.

Actually, no one said "euphoria - someone did say glee, though. However, no one said you were an evil b***h. Nor have I (we) said your actions are deplorable. All *I* said was that there is something in all of your posts that strikes me as off. I've said it before. I'm still saying it. It's why I tend not to post a lot to your threads. Because something doesn't seem right. And I don't know what it is. Until I figure it out, I'm not going to cheer you on, nor will I tell you off. But I will say that something doesn't seem right. If that's a bandwagon? <shrug> So be it. But I assure you it is my opinion, reached on my own. (in other words? CJane - eat it.)

 

[InfantCustody]

There appears to be some consensus.

I find it odd and that it appears OP is taking some sordid sense of glee, almost euphoria from a very sad and terrible situation.

Actually, someone said both "glee and euphoria!" This is the someone...

 

[Ohiogal]

IC, get your child allergy tested. Find out. Because it is a possibility. And yes, they will test infants/toddlers. I know.

 

[gr8rn]

In IC's defense:




As I'm sure you know (as an RN), there are different degrees of damage even within the same category. Not all 2nd degree burns are the same. Some 2nd degree burns are superficial and some are deep (with a wide range even within those categories).

Various online sources say that 2nd degree burns take "up to 3 weeks" to heal, so being mostly healed in 2.5 weeks is not necessarily out of line.

There's also the matter of size. Perhaps only 2% of the area had a 2nd degree burn and 98% was milder. If the 2nd degree portion was only 50% healed, the total would be 99% healed - as OP says.


Now, I am also just a bit suspicious, but no more than I am of many of the people posting here. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that 90% of the posts here are distorted in some significant way. Sometimes, it's just a matter of OP having a different viewpoint than ex, and sometimes, it's OP intentionally distorting the facts to try to get the answer s/he wants. And sometimes it's even totally fabricated (sm pretending to be dad or something similar). I think that's just a fact of life in reading the posts here.

IC's story may seem a little off, but I think a large part of that is because it has been reported at such length that we have far more details than we normally get. And I'm sure IC is presenting things in a way favorable to her side - as does almost everyone here. But I'm not sure that it's any worse than the other people who get help here all the time.

What she described, by saying skin sloughing off and skin completely gone, yes, that does sound like a bad bsecond degree burn. She expressly described full and partial thickness burns with the description that she gave, which is what I commented on. And yes, the 3 year old probably had a larger percent of her body burned that way (rule of 9's). But, the description is what I was questioning, because what she described could actually be 3rd degree burns as well. So yes, I question the 99% cure rate of a second degree burn in that area where normally infection could easily settle in by the child soiling in such a short time period.
I had issues with some of her posts. I described the issues because I wanted to hear more of an explanation.
I actuallly do believe there is something going on over at the fathers house. I believe some one over there is responsible and abusing the child.
I just wanted clarification regarding the posts in question.

 

[stealth2]

Actually, someone said both "glee and euphoria!" This is the someone...

Fair enough - my bad.

 

[mistoffolees]

Actually, someone said both "glee and euphoria!" This is the someone...

Actually, they said 'glee, ALMOST euphoria'.

Not that the difference matters that much.

 

[dmcc10880]

Actually, they said 'glee, ALMOST euphoria'.

Not that the difference matters that much.

And also referred to the situation as terrible and sad.

So, not all cold and heartless.

 

[CJane]

(in other words? CJane - eat it.)

Heh. Classy.

Look, OG has made it VERY clear in MANY posts how she feels about CPS. She's made it VERY clear in MANY posts how she feels about people who have babies out of wedlock. She's made it VERY clear both here and offline how she feels about single mothers who do ANYTHING AT ALL to interfere with the rights to visitation that fathers are granted by the court - even if they do so under the advice of their attorney.

I didn't arrive at MY opinion that there is some serious bandwagon jumping going on here in a vacuum.

If I'm wrong and IC is really making crap up just to spite her ex, fine. I'll eat crow. No big to me at all.

But just as YOU have your right to the opinion that something in IC's story is "off", I have a right to MY opinion that something in the responses is "off". I'm sorry that upsets you.

 

[Just Blue]

She's made it VERY clear in MANY posts how she feels about people who have babies out of wedlock. She's made it VERY clear both here and offline how she feels about single mothers who do ANYTHING AT ALL to interfere with the rights to visitation that fathers are granted by the court - even if they do so under the advice of their attorney.


.

Bull. Get over yourself. You have taken comments she has made to point out legal reality to hypocritical posters and turned it into an insult toward yourself.

I am a single mother of two. I have NEVER seen one comment toward an op, by OG, that is against a person having a child outside of wedlock.

 

[CJane]

Bull. Get over yourself. You have taken comments she has made to point out legal reality to hypocritical posters and turned it into an insult toward yourself.

I am a single mother of two. I have NEVER seen one comment toward an op, by OG, that is against a person having a child outside of wedlock.

So you missed the posts where she's said repeatedly "You shouldn't have acted like a *name that will get me banned* and had a child out of wedlock"?

Pretty sure that isn't "legal reality".

 

[stealth2]

Heh. Classy.

Look, OG has made it VERY clear in MANY posts how she feels about CPS. She's made it VERY clear in MANY posts how she feels about people who have babies out of wedlock. She's made it VERY clear both here and offline how she feels about single mothers who do ANYTHING AT ALL to interfere with the rights to visitation that fathers are granted by the court - even if they do so under the advice of their attorney.

I didn't arrive at MY opinion that there is some serious bandwagon jumping going on here in a vacuum.

If I'm wrong and IC is really making crap up just to spite her ex, fine. I'll eat crow. No big to me at all.

But just as YOU have your right to the opinion that something in IC's story is "off", I have a right to MY opinion that something in the responses is "off". I'm sorry that upsets you.

I don't give a flip what anyone else thinks. What ticks me off is your assertion that it's just a pile-on and we're all on some bandwagon. Have whatever opinion you want. But respect that, just as your opinion is YOURS, mine is MINE. I don't follow anyone. So yeah - you can eat that idiocy you're spewing.

 

[Just Blue]

So you missed the posts where she's said repeatedly "You shouldn't have acted like a *name that will get me banned* and had a child out of wedlock"?

Pretty sure that isn't "legal reality".

No. I know exactly what thread you are referring to and you, for some reason, took it as a personal insult. You also failed to understand the point. And yes. It was REALITY based on what the op was spewing.

If you have an issue with your life choices that is YOUR problem. Stop blaming others for your insecurities.

 

[LdiJ]

I had a heck of a workday today and haven't read this thread since I left for work this morning, but I have to say that I ditto what CJane has said in her last few posts and want to add the following:

What would a fit/innocent parent have done if they woke up one morning and changed the baby's diaper and seen what dad MUST have seen? Would a fit/innocent parent have simply turned the child over to the other parent or would the fit/innocent parent have immediately been on the horn to the other parent stating that "we have to get this baby to the doctor immediately, something is very wrong"?...or heck, even rushed to the emergency room or an emergency clinic while calling the other parent to let them know what was going on?

Can any one of you who feel that mom is "off" here state that you would have handled things the way that dad handled them?

Even if dad and his household is totally innocent of abuse and it was an allergic reaction that somehow got past 4 doctors and responded to treatment as a burn even though it was an allergic reaction dad is at least guilty of medical neglect.

Doctors are NOT going to diagnose severe diaper rash as burns...come on people...get some logic going here. So either the child was burned and needed immediate medical attention or the child had a severe allergic reaction and needed immediate medical attention, neither one of which dad made any effort to obtain.